COMPANIES LEAVE OUT THE!!!! & INNOVATE

90% of the formulations have Acesulfame potassium, aspartame, sucralose, artificial flavors, artificial coloring, etc. It is unnecessary to use these when their are natural and healthy alternatives like xylitol, stevia, etc.

I will no longer buy products with these ingredients and choose instead to buy "clean" products such as PrimaForce offers. No I am not asking the companies to cater to me. I am wondering when they will wake up and realize that these ingredients are becoming and will be a thing of the past.

Why not innovate your lines and become a leader in much more healthy formulations?

I'm a chemical engineer and worked with a company that modified a plant that made a certain sweetener. We were told to use respirators because this sweetener metabolized in the liver and a small portion converted to a chemical similar to a nerve gas derivative.

While I agree that artificial doesn't automatically make something "bad" for you some if these "sweeteners" are definitely "not good" for you. So give us more options for supplements that use natural sweeteners like sugar.

May I suggest using this app to track your bloodwork tests:
myBloodTracker for IPhone and IPad
https://appsto.re/us/vvMndb.i

The idea that something synthetic is automatically dangerous and that something natural is safe is asinine.

Of course they are going to respond in this way. Do you think they want to spend all that money reformulating even if it is your health at stake

Originally Posted by kenpoengineer

I'm a chemical engineer and worked with a company that modified a plant that made a certain sweetener. We were told to use respirators because this sweetener metabolized in the liver and a small portion converted to a chemical similar to a nerve gas derivative.

While I agree that artificial doesn't automatically make something "bad" for you some if these "sweeteners" are definitely "not good" for you. So give us more options for supplements that use natural sweeteners like sugar.

I'm a chemical engineer and worked with a company that modified a plant that made a certain sweetener. We were told to use respirators because this sweetener metabolized in the liver and a small portion converted to a chemical similar to a nerve gas derivative.

While I agree that artificial doesn't automatically make something "bad" for you some if these "sweeteners" are definitely "not good" for you. So give us more options for supplements that use natural sweeteners like sugar.

Sugar is a better alternative? How in the hell did you reach that conclusion?

Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff

Of course they are going to respond in this way. Do you think they want to spend all that money reformulating even if it is your health at stake

Who is "they" and why are you acting like it is some massive collective effort to increase profits at the sake of the consumer? No company is forcing you to buy any supplement and whatever parameters you use is your business.

"Scratch a lie, find a thief"... These awful things like aspertame which when metabolized by the body becomes formaldehyde "embalming fluid" are cheaper to use than all natural healthy alternatives like stevia.

In the order to make the most astronomical profit off of you the consumer this is what is used.

"Scratch a lie, find a thief"... These awful things like aspertame which when metabolized by the body becomes formaldehyde "embalming fluid" are cheaper to use than all natural healthy alternatives like stevia.

In the order to make the most astronomical profit off of you the consumer this is what is used.

You know that experiment/picture that was circulating a while back that had a plate of butter, smart balance, and margarine? The ants were all over the butter, there were a few attacking the smart balance, and the margarine had a few dead ants in it? Well, I had a similar experience happen a couple months ago. I had a bag of powdered stevia sweetner and a bag of splenda in the same box packed away. Some mice got into the box and demolished the stevia. There were some teeth marks in the splenda bag, but after the initial taste it seemed like they left it alone. That's got a say something.

Now, I'm not one that buys into all the hype surrounding artificial sweetners and use them regularly without thinking twice about it. But there do seem to be some that are a little healthier/better than others.

"Scratch a lie, find a thief"... These awful things like aspertame which when metabolized by the body becomes formaldehyde "embalming fluid" are cheaper to use than all natural healthy alternatives like stevia.

In the order to make the most astronomical profit off of you the consumer this is what is used.

Originally Posted by supermanjow

You know that experiment/picture that was circulating a while back that had a plate of butter, smart balance, and margarine? The ants were all over the butter, there were a few attacking the smart balance, and the margarine had a few dead ants in it? Well, I had a similar experience happen a couple months ago. I had a bag of powdered stevia sweetner and a bag of splenda in the same box packed away. Some mice got into the box and demolished the stevia. There were some teeth marks in the splenda bag, but after the initial taste it seemed like they left it alone. That's got a say something.

This now makes 3 perceptive post on one thread

Originally Posted by Rodja

Who is "they" and why are you acting like it is some massive collective effort to increase profits at the sake of the consumer? No company is forcing you to buy any supplement and whatever parameters you use is your business.

Please tell me you're not trying to equate artificial sweeteners to commercial tobacco. Is there an LD50 on aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame, etc. toxicity? Of course there is, however, you would have to take an astronomical amount of each of them daily to reach these doses. Considering that each of the commercially available forms of these (e.g. Splenda) are cut with maltodextrin and an anti-caking agent, you'd have to dump in bags of the stuff, which, let's be honest, is not happening. I find it somewhat hilarious that Truvia is gaining popularity when it is the brainchild of Cargill and Coca-Cola. When I think healthy options, I think Cargill and Coca-Cola.

I'm not fond of artificial sweeteners, but I also realize some things like BCAA's and some proteins are very hard to flavor without them. I use Muscle Milk Naturals for this reason, even though I'm getting a little extra sugar. Then again, I'm not a competitive BBer so a few extra grams of sugar won't put a knot in my banana hammock

Lol, no I was not one of those that voted for Obama or occupied Wallstreet. Just a conservative businessman that likes to see good business practices. Not at all against capitalism but not at the expense of peoples health.

I find it somewhat hilarious that Truvia is gaining popularity when it is the brainchild of Cargill and Coca-Cola. When I think healthy options, I think Cargill and Coca-Cola.

I agree that you don't think of Cargill and Coca-Coal with health but the fact is Truvia is a healthy product which is being made because their is a demand-"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"

I agree that you don't think of Cargill and Coca-Coal with health but the fact is Truvia is a healthy product which is being made because their is a demand-"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"

By whose standards?

Are we talking about the same stuff that was found to be mutagenic in early studies? The same stuff showing infertility in rat models?

"Scratch a lie, find a thief"... These awful things like aspertame which when metabolized by the body becomes formaldehyde "embalming fluid" are cheaper to use than all natural healthy alternatives like stevia.

In the order to make the most astronomical profit off of you the consumer this is what is used.

people word it that way to make it sound scary there is nothing wrong with artificial sweeteners. methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine, which is what your body metabolizes aspartame into, 2 are amino acids and methanol,which is what converts into formaldehyde, is naturally occuring in a lot of food. A serving of tomato juice provides about four to six times more methanol than the same amount of aspartame-sweetened beverage

"
Although the effects of these chemicals may sound scary, in reality an extremely unrealistically large amount of aspartame would need to be consumed before any of these compounds reach a dangerous level. The daily level that the FDA has set is 50 mg-aspartame/kg bodyweight. This amount is actually an extremely large amount. For example, a 150-pound person must consume 97 packets of dry sweetener, or 19 cans of diet soft drink, in one day to reach this level, while a 200-pound person must consume 130 packets, or 25 cans. Even though the FDA has set a daily maximum of 50mg aspartame/kg of bodyweight, the human body can actually safely process much more than this amount.
As stated earlier we know that one of the by-products of aspartame is methanol which can break down into formaldehyde and formate and cause blindness and metabolic acidosis. However, the amount of aspartame necessary to reach levels to be this dangerous is immense. According to (Wahlen, 1998), in order for the body to accumulate enough formate to be toxic, a human must consume 200 to 500 mg of methanol /kg of bodyweight. 10% of the weight of aspartame converts to methanol; which would mean you would need to consume 2000 to 5000 mg of aspartame to reach those levels of methanol. This amount corresponds to drinking 600 to 1700 cans of diet soft drink in one sitting."

people word it that way to make it sound scary there is nothing wrong with artificial sweeteners. methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine, which is what your body metabolizes aspartame into, 2 are amino acids and methanol,which is what converts into formaldehyde, is naturally occuring in a lot of food. A serving of tomato juice provides about four to six times more methanol than the same amount of aspartame-sweetened beverage

"
Although the effects of these chemicals may sound scary, in reality an extremely unrealistically large amount of aspartame would need to be consumed before any of these compounds reach a dangerous level. The daily level that the FDA has set is 50 mg-aspartame/kg bodyweight. This amount is actually an extremely large amount. For example, a 150-pound person must consume 97 packets of dry sweetener, or 19 cans of diet soft drink, in one day to reach this level, while a 200-pound person must consume 130 packets, or 25 cans. Even though the FDA has set a daily maximum of 50mg aspartame/kg of bodyweight, the human body can actually safely process much more than this amount.
As stated earlier we know that one of the by-products of aspartame is methanol which can break down into formaldehyde and formate and cause blindness and metabolic acidosis. However, the amount of aspartame necessary to reach levels to be this dangerous is immense. According to (Wahlen, 1998), in order for the body to accumulate enough formate to be toxic, a human must consume 200 to 500 mg of methanol /kg of bodyweight. 10% of the weight of aspartame converts to methanol; which would mean you would need to consume 2000 to 5000 mg of aspartame to reach those levels of methanol. This amount corresponds to drinking 600 to 1700 cans of diet soft drink in one sitting."

Google aspartame for youselves to find out the truth. Millions of people have had all kinds of advese reactions. I would link a handful of the many studies but don't have the posting power to do so.